One Step Now Education

October 2, 2026

grammar

Everyone around me seems to be into their grammar these days. After a long educational hiatus, nouns, verbs, phrases, and clauses are working their way back into our classrooms.

But have you taken a look at the word grammar itself?

In our investigation, you'll first think about what you bring to the table when it comes to a word's "meaning." Then we'll look at different characterstics of a noun and how it functions in the wider system. We'll distinguish it from an adjective although it can share a similar function. We'll look at the suffix <-ar> and how it's an allomorph. We will also sort out the difference between morphological relatives and etymological relatives.

Meaning

What is this word's meaning and how does the word function?

This word can have several meanings when you look inside the Collins dictionary. However, as I do with students, I invite you to consider what the word means to you first.

For me, what I associate with grammar is the class I had all through school known as "English." We would identify parts of speech, underline clauses, and diagram sentences. In high school, we had Warriner's English Grammar and Composition, which came close to standard issue in America.

Whereas I gleefully placed S over the subject and V over the verb in any sentence you handed me, others chafed under this kind of instruction. And a lot of research began coming out that said that it wasn't exactly making us the best writers either.

The other connotation this word brings to mind is Grammar Nazi. These are the people silently holding red pens on the internet jumping to tell you you've used it's instead of its or your modifiers are dangling.

So the word grammar hasn't had the best look over the years. No wonder it disappeared.

Collins has four entries for our word. In the first entry, they define it as "the way words can be put together in order to make sentences." Whereas this is a popular definition of grammar, I refer to this more as syntax.

Collins also says it can refer to whether or not someone "obeys" the rules of grammar when writing or speaking. This is the provenance of the aforementioned Grammar Nazis.

And the last two entries say that grammar can refer to a book that describes the rules of a language or a theory that explains the rules of a language.

In all of these entries, grammar functions as a noun. The first two entries are uncountable nouns. One of the characteristics of a noun is that it can be pluralized; however, uncountable nouns cannot. If you are referring to the book in the third entry, though, it is countable.

Finally, Collins says the last entry is a variable noun. A variable noun can either be countable or uncountable.

Nouns can also function as modifiers, meaning they modify other nouns:

• She placed her grammar book on the table.
• The grammar class is taught by an applied linguist.

In the first sentence, grammar modifies book. In the second sentence, grammar modifies class.

How do we know grammar is not an adjective in those two sentences? Well, an adjective can be inflected for degree or can express degree. We don't say something is grammarer or grammarest. We also don't say something is "more grammar" than another. We do, however, say things are larger or largest or something is "more complex" or "most complex" because large and complex are adjectives.

Both nouns and adjectives can modify nouns. Nouns and adjectives are forms. Modifying is a function.

Structure

What are the elements that make up this word's structure?

Does your hypothesis for this word's structure look like this:

gramm + ar

The suffix <-ar> can be found on words like particular or cellar. It is an allomorph of the suffix <-al>. Allomorphs are two forms of the same element. In most cases, one form is the default. The other is used in specialized environments, primarily phonological. Here, the suffix <-al> is the default. We use the suffix <-ar> when previous elements in the word already contain an particular and an cellar.

Could this gram? And why are there two

The entry for grammar says this word first appeared around the late 14th century. Originally, it meant the "rules of Latin." Etymonline will give you a definition of what the word meant when it entered the lexicon, not necessarily the definition of what the word means now in Modern English. As with many words, it came to us through Old French gramaire.

Interestingly, it also had a meaning of "magic" or "mumbo-jumbo." More on that later.

The entry goes on to tell us the word is actually from Greek grammatike., "the art of letters." In Greek the word gramma referred to letters. It tells us to see <-gram>, which is part of words like telegram, monogram, and even Instagram.

How do you go from a Greek noun to an English base? Well, just as in Latin, you look for the genitive form. Depending on what declension it is, you will have a suffix you can remove. Here the suffix is <-a>. We can remove that to arrive at

gramm + ar

But let's circle back around to some of these earlier senses.

The current meaning of grammar didn't really develop until the 16th century. Some of you may refer to schools for younger students as grammar schools instead of elementary schools. Originally, these schools were for learning Latin. As the word came to be used for English grammar as well, we adopted that name for our schools in the U.S.

The entry also says, for the "magic" sense, compare gramary. Learning in general during the Middle Ages included astrology and magic, things which are now known more as pseudo-science. In French, the manual associated with this dark magic was the grimoire. In the universe of the Wicked books by Gregory Maguire and the subsequent musical and movie, it was referred to as the Grimmerie.

But an interesting byproduct was its development into the word glamour. In English it was popularized in the 1700s by Sir Walter Scott. In the sense of "magical beauty" and allure, it became associated with fashion and celebrity. It was the power of enchantment.

Relatives

What are the word's relatives and history?

So, we clearly have a lot of relatives from the above sense, but which are morphological relatives that we may be able to assemble in a matrix, and which are etymological relatives that would exist in an etymological circle surrounding the matrix.

Morphological relatives must have the same spelling of the base and be derived from the same root. For us, this means, they would have the base gramma from Greek. We have grammaticaland grammarian. So would the measurement gram be included here?

The entry for gram as a measure of weight does appear to be derived from the same gramma, "letter." However, it lacks the extra

We could have another matrix for gramary as well as telegram, hologram, and Instagram. Both of these matrices could exist inside the same etymological circle.

And outside of those matrices but within the circle, we could include the grimoire and glamour. (or glamor, depending upon which side of The Pond you reside).

Graphemes

What can the pronunciation of the word teach us about the relationship of its graphemes and its phonology?

The double

So why are we using the <-ar> suffix if there isn't an bursar or registrar.

Next Steps

What concepts from this investigation can we explore next to learn more about the English orthographic system?

There was nothing about identifying forms and correcting errors that transferred to great writing in the grammar teaching of my youth. We have to help our students with the purpose of grammar. Why is it important for me to know this word is an adjective? How can I reposition this phrase, based on its function in my sentence? When is my sentence complete? And when is it not? When we help students use grammar rather than identify its pieces, then we will see better results.

Sentence diagramming and subject/verb agreement may not seem that glamorous, but taught helpfully, they just might prove magical after all.

Stay curious,

Brad

​Sign up for the newsletter!​

​Join the community!
​​

Taking the Next Step​
​In this monthly addendum, we look at ways to explore words with students just beginning to scientifically study words.

The process of scientific study begins by gathering a data set and looking for patterns. I might begin a study of the suffix <-al> with beginning students by showing a set of 10-12 words like final, magical, personal, seasonal and survival.

I'd ask, "What do you notice?"

My data set would include those words that have easily identifiable bases once the suffix is removed. These are known as transparent bases, and some, like magic, might be complex (mage + ic). So this initial set wouldn't include a word like general or social where the base is bound.

The student might not notice the suffix right away, choosing instead to focus on certain graphemes.

"I notice they all have an ."

As always, we accept the response and craft the thinking.

"Tell me more about that . Where does it show up?"

I'm hoping they'll be directed to the suffix. If they don't get there on their own, I'll make a note, and then say, "Can I share something I noticed?"

I've yet to have a student tell me no.

"I notice they all have this <-al> at the end, and if I take it off, I still have a word like emotion in emotional. Did you notice that too?"

Bonus if they did. No big deal if they did not.

"I wonder if that works with all these words."

We'll then go through and analyze all these words to see if indeed the <-al> can be removed. I'll review with them that this tells us the <-al> is a suffix we can add to bases to create new words. (Big Idea #4. Words are composed of elements such as bases, prefixes, suffixes, and connecting vowel letters.)

I'll take a few words and set them to the side.

"Let's see what the <-al> suffix does in these words. How does this word change from person to personal?"

I'm hoping they will begin to notice that the suffix <-al> derives adjectives from nouns, or as my students sometimes say, "turns nouns into adjectives."

"I wonder if they always do that."

Now it's time to introduce a word like survival, where the <-al> "turns a verb into a noun."

I might not go this far. Depends on the student's knowledge and stamina.

The most important thing to notice is that we are not telling the student the answers but creating the conditions so they will notice patterns in words themselves. That way, when they are on their own, reading a great book they will spot a suffix like <-al> and begin to do the noticing and wondering themselves. That's when you know they're understanding the English orthographic system.

PS. I have a whole resource on the suffix <-al> inside the CEO community. Sorts and activities for other suffixes are there as well. You can subscribe at the link underneath my signature.